If you know your child is going to be born with a congenital condition and you can take away that condition, I don't know very many parents who would turn that down (assuming they could afford it, of course). Now giving your child blue eyes or making sure you get a daughter is a bit much, but at the end of the day as long as the parents aren't giving their children some disease (I don't know who would ever do this but you never know) I don't think it's that big of a deal. If the parents can afford it, sure.

There are really two separate issues here: What do you think of genetically engineering people as a theoretical thing we will no doubt someday be doing, and what do you think about what this individual researcher did.

Perhaps someone who is more dialed into this field will correct me if I'm wrong, but my layperson's understanding is we don't really know enough yet about gene-editing to do it with any sort of confidence yet. In other words, we know that pushing this button might make your eyes blue, but it will also do other things, only some of which we know about for sure.

There are really two separate issues here: What do you think of genetically engineering people as a theoretical thing we will no doubt someday be doing, and what do you think about what this individual researcher did.

Perhaps someone who is more dialed into this field will correct me if I'm wrong, but my layperson's understanding is we don't really know enough yet about gene-editing to do it with any sort of confidence yet. In other words, we know that pushing this button might make your eyes blue, but it will also do other things, only some of which we know about for sure.

Yes, this is my main objection. I have no inherent objection to genetically engineering people (although I can certainly think of many potential problems). It's doing it right now, with all we don't yet know, that concerns me.

There are really two separate issues here: What do you think of genetically engineering people as a theoretical thing we will no doubt someday be doing, and what do you think about what this individual researcher did.

Perhaps someone who is more dialed into this field will correct me if I'm wrong, but my layperson's understanding is we don't really know enough yet about gene-editing to do it with any sort of confidence yet. In other words, we know that pushing this button might make your eyes blue, but it will also do other things, only some of which we know about for sure.

Maybe somewhat of an expert. I agree with your analysis. Maybe some day we will be able to edit with certainty, but we have a long way to go. We dont even fully understand trancription and translation and all the different ways it's controlled.

If you know your child is going to be born with a congenital condition and you can take away that condition, I don't know very many parents who would turn that down (assuming they could afford it, of course). Now giving your child blue eyes or making sure you get a daughter is a bit much, but at the end of the day as long as the parents aren't giving their children some disease (I don't know who would ever do this but you never know) I don't think it's that big of a deal. If the parents can afford it, sure.

I mean we do see issues around this surrounding the debate surrounding cochlear implants. There are plenty of people who are vehemently against cochlear implants, some of whom are Deaf. This includes Deaf parents of Deaf children who are good candidates for the procedure.

Cystic fibrosis runs in my family. It's a clear case where there is a single gene to fix, which encodes a single protein, which has been heavily, heavily researched. Fixing broken CFTR genes would be a win for individuals, families, and humanity.

I still wouldn't mess with a baby using CRISPR/Cas9. We're not very good at any of this yet.

But I do hope that they get good at targeted single gene edits. CF is horrible.

Cystic fibrosis runs in my family. It's a clear case where there is a single gene to fix, which encodes a single protein, which has been heavily, heavily researched. Fixing broken CFTR genes would be a win for individuals, families, and humanity.

I still wouldn't mess with a baby using CRISPR/Cas9. We're not very good at any of this yet.

But I do hope that they get good at targeted single gene edits. CF is horrible.

Exactly, I referenced CFTR earlier for the same reason...a potential clear win for the technology. My concern is that stunts like the one that started this conversation will cast the technology in a disparaging light in the public eye and cause regulatory and funding issues that will harm the development of legitimate uses and treatments.

Genetic engineering already has a negative connotation for much of the public (Monsanto) that in my opinion is not deserved. Attention grabbing stunts like this aren't going to help.

Not sure what you mean. Are you implying that genetic engineering will destroy the Earth? If so that is a bit hyperbolic dont you think?

Nah. Just that the earth is trying hard to rid itself of this annoying, harmful virus and the damn virus keeps fighting back by changing, and now can even engineer the change.

Eh....not sure how I feel about that. I like humans...I am a human....pretty much all of my friends and family are humans. I am an enviormentalist and think that our lack of action on climate change is a travesty but I care about the planet because we live on it and it is where I keep all of my stuff. It is in our best interest long-term to protect it.

If I didn't care about humanity really not sure why I'd care about this particular planet.

While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....

It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.

I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?

And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.

If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.

*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.

While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....

It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.

I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?

And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.

If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.

*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.

I am not strongly against it but the "designer baby" thing does make me a bit uncomfortable so I guess I'll try to explain why.

For me it is about consent. If a 30 year old wants to get a tattoo that is fine by me....it is not for me but the risk is low and it's there choice. If that same 30 year old wanted to tattoo their baby though that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Would be the same for me if you could use genetic engineering to change a physical feature for cosmetic reasons.

Now if the change is reversible then that makes it slightly better...although arguably you can have a tattoo removed too. If there is any sort of risk of harm then I think it just starts being clearly unethical. Even without chance of harm though I still find it a bit gross for an adult to force cosmetic choices onto an unborn child who cannot consent.

I actually very much for developing genetic engineering based tech and therapies....but I'd rather not see it uses so casually for aesthetics alone.

While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....

It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.

I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?

And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.

If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.

*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.

I am not strongly against it but the "designer baby" thing does make me a bit uncomfortable so I guess I'll try to explain why.

For me it is about consent. If a 30 year old wants to get a tattoo that is fine by me....it is not for me but the risk is low and it's there choice. If that same 30 year old wanted to tattoo their baby though that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Would be the same for me if you could use genetic engineering to change a physical feature for cosmetic reasons.

Now if the change is reversible then that makes it slightly better...although arguably you can have a tattoo removed too. If there is any sort of risk of harm then I think it just starts being clearly unethical. Even without chance of harm though I still find it a bit gross for an adult to force cosmetic choices onto an unborn child who cannot consent.

I actually very much for developing genetic engineering based tech and therapies....but I'd rather not see it uses so casually for aesthetics alone.

What really changes though? It's not like the fetus chooses how they look now and we are shifting from their choice to the parents. Why is parental input bad compared to "luck of the draw"?

While, in theory, it is technology that could rid the world of a whole host of genetic diseases....

It's such a slippery slope...we don't know the long-term effects of these modifications. It has the potential to be used for the creation of "designer babies". In case you want a blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl.

I wonder if the same people who buy non-GMO popcorn and such would be okay with a genetically modified baby?

And what would be wrong with that? I hear people say "OMG designer babies" but never hear a rational argument about why that would be inherently bad.

If it was perfectly safe*, why would it be wrong as parents for us to make decisions about the kid outside of not having life threatening diseases or debilitating conditions? If someone said to me "hey we noticed you have hammer toes, we can guarantee your kid doesn't get that" why would that be bad? It might be minor to other people, it's a pain in the *kitten* for me and possible future surgery. I really don't see the difference beyond scale of life impact between "prevent heart defect" and "make sure he has mom's eyes" if the process and safety measures are the same.

*Perfectly safe = fetuses aren't being aborted until you get the right combination, the genome is well understood, maybe some limitations on "must use parents own material" as a base so you aren't stealing DNA from strangers or using frog DNA like a Michael Crichton novel.

I am not strongly against it but the "designer baby" thing does make me a bit uncomfortable so I guess I'll try to explain why.

For me it is about consent. If a 30 year old wants to get a tattoo that is fine by me....it is not for me but the risk is low and it's there choice. If that same 30 year old wanted to tattoo their baby though that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Would be the same for me if you could use genetic engineering to change a physical feature for cosmetic reasons.

Now if the change is reversible then that makes it slightly better...although arguably you can have a tattoo removed too. If there is any sort of risk of harm then I think it just starts being clearly unethical. Even without chance of harm though I still find it a bit gross for an adult to force cosmetic choices onto an unborn child who cannot consent.

I actually very much for developing genetic engineering based tech and therapies....but I'd rather not see it uses so casually for aesthetics alone.

What really changes though? It's not like the fetus chooses how they look now and we are shifting from their choice to the parents. Why is parental input bad compared to "luck of the draw"?

Intent is the difference...and intent matters. To see that just apply the logic you used here to anything else.

Bob accidentally leaves his new iPhone10 on the subway. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by "luck of the draw"....he didn't choose it. Joe steals Bob's new iPhone10 on the subway when Bob isn't looking. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by Joe's input. In both situations the end result for Bob is the same, so are these two events morally equivalent or is one more wrong than the other? In my opinion in one situation it was happenstance, no moral issue, while in the other situation Joe wronged Bob...doesn't matter that the end result was the same.

If parents decide to make their kids eyes blue and then later in life, in a society that chooses eye colors, blue eyes are considered a sign of vanity and the now adult suffers societal consequences for their blue eyes as a result...that is not happenstance, that is a choice that person had no voice in made to them by someone else. That isn't right. Even if it is reversible it isn't right, same way that in the above example Joe could feel guilty later and buy Bob a new iPhone10....doesn't make his original choice any more right.

To me there is a big difference being nature and random chance doing something to you you didn't want and another person doing something to you you didn't want.

If a parent tattooing a baby makes you uncomfortable I'm not sure why them using genetic engineering tech to change that babies physical appearance wouldn't also make you uncomfortable.

Bob accidentally leaves his new iPhone10 on the subway. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by "luck of the draw"....he didn't choose it. Joe steals Bob's new iPhone10 on the subway when Bob isn't looking. The end result is that Bob no longer has his iPhone10 by Joe's input. In both situations the end result for Bob is the same, so are these two events morally equivalent or is one more wrong than the other? In my opinion in one situation it was happenstance, no moral issue, while in the other situation Joe wronged Bob...doesn't matter that the end result was the same.

If parents decide to make their kids eyes blue and then later in life, in a society that chooses eye colors, blue eyes are considered a sign of vanity and the now adult suffers societal consequences for their blue eyes as a result...that is not happenstance, that is a choice that person had no voice in made to them by someone else. That isn't right. Even if it is reversible it isn't right, same way that in the above example Joe could feel guilty later and buy Bob a new iPhone10....doesn't make his original choice any more right.

To me there is a big difference being nature and random chance doing something to you you didn't want and another person doing something to you you didn't want.

If a parent tattooing a baby makes you uncomfortable I'm not sure why them using genetic engineering tech to change that babies physical appearance wouldn't also make you uncomfortable.

Here are the flaws with this analogy.

First, stealing an iPhone was wrong BEFORE it happened in the story. In the eye-color story, the cultural decision about blue-eyes happened after the parents made their choice. That's blaming them for things outside their set of available knowledge at the time of the decision. And what about the people who got blue-eyes by chance? Aren't they also being discriminated against? So wouldn't that be genetics fault if it was the parents fault for the chosen kid?

Second, the embryo doesn't have ANY rights. It isn't a person yet. The only reason it would exist is because Person A & B decided to combine genetic material. If if develops into a person (survives the dangers of pregnancy) it is born with limited rights. The parents have the right to make the majority of decisions for the child as long as basic needs (food, shelter, heat, education) are met, and the child isn't put into danger. As a parent, one gets to decide everything else.